Have you seen the "Bulk Action" button (top right) when you select a node, or right click on the node?the ability to select multiple VMs and perform the same action on same
Have you seen the "Bulk Action" button (top right) when you select a node, or right click on the node?the ability to select multiple VMs and perform the same action on same
"Software require mature users."
"This is a hypervisor, not a game. No sane person would"
"Greasemoney and monkey-patch the code on the fly'
So you tell us that we are not interested in working with community members? This is a weird assumption and not true.
PVE is published under AGPLV3. nuff said
args: -drive file=/var/lib/vz/images/103/vm-103-disk-0.qcow2,if=none,id=NVME1 -device nvme,drive=NVME1,serial=nvme-1
I found another use where a mod manager would be useful.
I notice many things, the devs are asked and responded "not enough people need this and also no because security"
Why? I can see why one would like the possibility to edit the arguments in the WebUI but this has nothing to do with the existence (or lack) of a mod system. BTW I don't think it's asking to much that for certain changes only editing the config files is supported.Which is exactly why one would use a mod system.
Anyway, here is the latest thing I found that would benefit from a mod system, allowing setting the VM "args" value from the Options tabs
Hi,
I need to define "args"
There is no way to do this in the web user interface
Example command
Code:args: -drive file=/var/lib/vz/images/103/vm-103-disk-0.qcow2,if=none,id=NVME1 -device nvme,drive=NVME1,serial=nvme-1
I think "args" should be set in the section of the UI called Options shown below
- shodan
- Replies: 1
- Forum: Proxmox VE: Installation and configuration
The lack of this feature holds proxmox back.
This is the problem with board room thinking
I may be wrong, but I have the impression that this is more due to a lack of human and time resources thus priorities are given to more urgent features."How many users want this"
The person asking the question, doesn't need it, therefore it is "whichever amount that isn't enough"
Result is that there is a "long tail" of feature that never get done.
Without a mod system to bypass the development bureaucracy
See above, anybody can submit a patch or publish a fork.These features pass from "will not get done by org" to "cannot and will not ever be done by anyone"
I have a graph to explain this if you will forgive the MS paint energy
The problem is this creates barriers and any features beyond the barrier cannot exist without heroic efforts.
Flattening barries has it's benefits but I highly doubt that it's always a good thing. Everything has it's price.So flattening these barriers is always a good thing.
What a mod system does is make it possible for someone to change something and distribute it in a way that regular users can use.
Without a mod system to bypass the development bureaucracy
but he paste-binned a wall of chatgpt filler text 1111eineinselfAgain: You don't need a "mod system" for this and I'm not willing to discuss a color graphic that makes a pseudo-scientific claim without actually proving it.
Example:
Many Home Assistant users run their instances in a trusted LAN environment, so they happily disable security prompts or auto-login features that would be unacceptable in a corporate setup. Proxmox should allow users the same flexibility.
Analogy:
Telling someone to fork Proxmox instead of allowing mods is like telling someone to fork Firefox to add a feature, instead of just writing a browser extension. It’s unnecessarily burdensome and leads to fragmentation.
Example:
Blender's add-on system allows users to add custom exporters and UI tweaks without affecting the core 3D engine. Similarly, Kubernetes allows custom controllers, which let users handle niche use cases without modifying the core system.
Analogy:
Imagine if VS Code didn’t have an extension system. Developers would constantly ask Microsoft to add support for new languages, linters, or themes, and many of those requests would never be implemented. The extension system solved this problem, allowing users to customize their editor while keeping the core software stable.
This concern is based on the assumption that mods would be inherently dangerous. However, as explained, mod systems can be designed to mitigate security risks by:"If a feature is considered a security issue, why should it be possible to implement it as a mod?"
Objection by Johannes S | Counterargument |
---|---|
"Security concerns mean certain features shouldn’t be possible." | Mod systems can be sandboxed to limit security risks. Users can choose whether to install mods or not. |
"Anybody can submit a patch or fork the project." | Submitting patches and maintaining forks is impractical for most users. A mod system lowers the barrier. |
"Infrastructure software must remain stable." | The core system would remain stable. Mods would be optional UI-level changes, like Firefox extensions. |
"Flattening barriers isn't always good." | Flattening barriers fosters innovation, as shown by WordPress, Home Assistant, VS Code, etc. |
"Pseudo-scientific graphics don’t prove anything." | The long tail concept is a valid argument that shows how unmet niche needs can be addressed via mods. |
but he paste-binned a wall of chatgpt filler text 1111eineinself
@shodan if you cannot convince/persuade the Proxmox Team to change PVE behaviour to your requirements, you are free to do two/three things:
- fork it
- pay someone to change it for your local installation, in this release for now and also adapt it in all future versions to come
- send a patch
> you didn't address my argument: If a feature is considered as potential security issue and thus not implemented why should it be possible to implement it as a mod?
If there was a mod that would turn off all or any security system in proxmox, I would install this mod right now.
I simply do not need most of proxmox's security layers, they get in the way of my work flow, yes I would remove them all.
>PVE is still open source so anybody could develop such a feature and submit a patch or create a fork.
No, I am not getting into administration.
I am not submitting documents for administrative approval.
I am not starting a whole new competing project.
It would still be an additional function thus a larger attack surface through more lines of code.> I don't want that infrastructure software (which ProxmoxVE clearly is!) is getting unstable by feature-creep.
Do you understand how, submitting a patch for feature is exactly what will change your infrastructure
And that a mod system is how YOU AVOID THAT PROBLEM ?
Do you understand that YOU don't have to install mods ?
> I'm not willing to discuss a color graphic that makes a pseudo-scientific claim
Look, I don't understand what is your problem ?
< ad hominem remarks removed>
I understand that graphic is a little information dense
So I encourage you to read the associated explainer document
https://pastebin.com/bvYpqAWT
Oh yeah, I still remember when this happend with Veeam ... great times ...new version of PBS with support for backups to S3 storage which looses backups.
Wow, I didn't know that this actually was a thingOh yeah, I still remember when this happend with Veeam ... great times ...
mid two-digit TB backup to S3 and was unable to restore, some internal problem. Veeam support was unable to help, dataloss. Since then S3 was removed from the customers backup strategy.Wow, I didn't know that thid actually was a thingI just tried to make up a good example for the point I wanted to make. I never would have imagined that "enterprise-grade" Software with such a showstopper would be published to a wider audience.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.